Leviathan was Thomas Hobbes' most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts of the seventeenth century. Published in 1651, it was written partly as a response to the fear that Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil War. It became clear to Hobbes during the 1640s that Parliament was going to turn against Charles I of England, so he fled to France for eleven years, fearful that he, as a Royalist, would be persecuted. He produced Leviathan during this self-imposed exile, and it was published in 1651, two years after the beheading of Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Hobbes argued in Leviathan for the necessity of absolute sovereignty, and as this was generally unpopular in the years following the English Civil War and coincided with several texts that tried to justify the execution of Charles I, his work was extremely controversial politically. It was also, however, controversial philosophically, as Hobbes tried to challenge the nature of philosophy itself. Hobbes claimed that traditional philosophy offered only useless sophistries and insubstantial rhetoric, so he wanted to reform philosophy completely. He went about this by trying to prevent disagreements about the philosophical foundations of human nature, society, and government. Because he believed that civil war was a result of disagreements about the philosophical foundations of political knowledge, Hobbes believed that a reformed philosophy to end divisiveness would also end civil war. Hobbes has had a lasting impact on the development of Western philosophy, as he is credited with inaugurating political science.
The Leviathan
The Leviathan, which, in modern Hebrew means "whale," but has since become synonymous for any giant creature, is used by Hobbes to represent the state. It is the singular authority "to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence". The head of this creature is the soverign. Its body made up of all the collective strength and authouity conferred on him by the people who enter into the commonwealth through the social contract. It uses its power to ensure peace at home and to oppose their enemies abroad. Therefore, within this creature consists the essence of a commonwealth.
The Social Contract
Hobbes is an important early exponent of the notion of the social contract, which Rousseau later expanded upon. In Leviathan, Hobbes explains various laws of nature aimed at the survival of mankind. Hobbes's belief is that man's natural state is one of war, a war that pits the wills and desires of each individual against those of his neighbor (See State of Nature).
Hobbes explains that the best option to ensure survival is for people to enter a "social contract."
A social contract takes place when man renounces his right to do all things, and to be content with as much liberty against others as he would allow others against himself. The goal of this contract is the termination of war in exchange for peace. In order to achieve said peace, however, Hobbes believes it is necessary to establish/create an order that is external to the nature of man. It is this artificial control, which is often referred to as "society," which Hobbes argues is essential for the basis of the social contract. For the viability of this society, Hobbes argued that absolute sovereign was necessary to enforce rule of law.
Laws of Nature
(So what is a law of nature, for Hobbes? Do they hold in the state of nature? - xmarquez Sep 13, 2006)
1. To seek peace. Each man has the liberty, or absence of external impediments, to do that which is necessary to preserve his own nature. Naturally, every man has a right to everything.
2. To give up rights (such as the right to kill) in order to escape war and continual violence. In corcordance with the first law of nature, one should do unto others as he would want others to do unto him.
3. To keep social contracts we make with others. Breaking of the covenant, or a breach in the keeping of promise and faith, is unjust.
4. To show gratitude to those who keep contract. This might consist of treating all individuals in a society with certain basic rights. We are certainly not showing gratitude to those who keep the contract when we treat them unjustly. Furthermore, we might say Hobbes' gratitude includes certain necessities such as food and healthcare, in addition to the primary protection offered by the social contract.
5. Complaisance, that is, man should attempt to compromise with others in order to achieve covenant and peace. Man will do what he can for conservation of his own nature. Those who comply with this law are said to be sociable.
6. The notion of the pardon. Man should consider pardoning past offenses made against him in order to attempt to reach the primary objective of peace.
7. Men seek for the future good in executing revenge against enemies that have offended them in the past.
8. Contumely, or declaration of hate against another, is prohibited. Contumely does not contribute to peace, man's primary objective.
9. The recognition of equality in other men. The breach of this law is pride; pride has no place in the condition of mere nature.
10. Arrogance, or the desire to do more than one's share, does not contribute to peace. Therefore, man should strive to be modest and reserve some rights for other men; all men are equal in rights. (Are these all the laws of nature? Also, you can link directly to Hobbes' text - since the text is online - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
The Commonwealth
Hobbes suggests that the final end or fulfillment of men who love freedom is to relinquish their own freedom in order to gain particular security and live life without a constant fear of war with all other people. He argues the only way to achieve this security is to form a ‘commonwealth’, which he defines as “the multitude united in one person.” Under this system, the multitude will submit their will unto one will, which shall “act in those things which concern the common peace and safety.” This person is named the ‘sovereign’ and all the rest are his ‘subjects’. (How does this section connect with the above section on the social contract? - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006) The concept of a commonwealth connects with the social contract because it is another instance in which humans "unnaturally" decide to give up certain rights in order to increase their likelihood of survival. Creatures naturally tend to live in societies, but men do not usually do this because they are in competition, seek private benefit, get offended, and make agreements (not naturally, but by covenant only).
Sovereignty
Sovereignty can be gained through two ways: acquisition or institution. Acquisition is power achieved by force while institution is power gained when most men agree amongst themselves to submit to some man. In both cases men choose the sovereign out of fear: in acquisition it is out of fear of one man, whereas in institution it is out of fear of one another. A sovereign is a person or group given control over a population, the modern nation-state would be an example of the soverign. In a democracy the sovereign can be made of many different representatives of the populous. (But what is a/the sovereign?- xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
Sovereigns who achieve power through institution have certain rights, which include:
The subjects cannot change the form of government; they have made a covenant and are obliged not to do anything contrary to it, so being bound to this commonwealth by that covenant, subjects cannot lawfully change this government.
Sovereign power cannot be forfeited; the sovereign was given power by the subjects, and he made no covenant to them. So there is no way for him to break a covenant, and consequently they cannot be released from his subjection.
No man can without justice protest against the institution of the sovereign declared by the major part; one has already voluntarily entered into the congregation of those that chose the sovereign, and so must then consent with the major part, regardless of one's own personal preferences. Anything contrary to that would be unjust, and if one does not submit to the rest, he will be left in the condition of war in which he previously found himself.
The sovereign’s actions cannot be justly accused by the subjects; because every subject has given the sovereign the authority to basically do whatever, any action by the sovereign cannot be accused as unjust because a) that would be like the subject accusing himself of something unjust, and b) as mentioned, the subject gave the sovereign the right to do it in the first place.
No man that has sovereign power can be put to death; since every subject is also responsible for the sovereign's actions, the sovereign cannot be put to death because that would be punishing the sovereign for the subject's own actions.
The sovereign solely has the right to make judgments in issues involving the peace and defense of his subjects
The sovereign solely has the right to make rules, and every man may know these rules, so that he knows what goods he can enjoy and what actions he may do; this is a way of stately concretely what belongs to whom and who can do what so that the state of nature (where anyone can "justly" do anything) can be avoided and everyone can live in peace...awww.
The sovereign solely has the right of judicature and decision in controversy; to avoid widespread disagreement and fighting, the laws are set out.
The sovereign solely has the power to make war and peace with other nations, and commonwealths; an army under one solid command is going to be much stronger and united, and therefore better able to defend the commonwealth.
The sovereign solely has the right to choose all counsellors and ministers, both of war and peace
The sovereign solely has the power of rewarding and punishing
The sovereign solely has the power of honoring and ordering; men naturally don't honor and value each other, so some laws of honor are made. This also helps avoid a society where everyone hates each other, which would make it hard for the commonwealth to unite and defend itself if need be (You can link directly to the chapterin Leviathan that has this - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
Types of Sovereignty:
Monarchy: One man has sovereignty
Democracy: Sovereignty is held by a general assembly of subjects
Aristocracy: Sovereignty is held by an assembly of certain nominated persons, or by those who are otherwise distinguished from the rest.
Not all commonwealths can be easily classified as falling within one of these three categories. Ex: There can be elective kingdoms, in which kings have the sovereign power put into their hands for a time. In this case the king is not the sovereign, but the minister of the sovereigns, who are the people that elected him. In the end, however, Hobbes says that all governments ultimately fall under one of these there categories. (How about a contemporary example? Can we say something about the sovereign in the USA - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
Hobbes claims that monarchy is the best form of government as it is the form of government most likely to bring peace as it can suffer less from the indecision, conflict, and civil war that can result from multiple-member assemblies. Hobbes claims that, in a monarchy, the monarch's private interest is directly tied to the interest of the whole public since the one at the head of a state cannot be well off unless the state itself is well off. In contrast, in democracies and aristocracies, one member of the sovereign does not rely as heavily on the success of the state for their own private well being. Secondly, monarchs can recieve the counsel of knowledgable people in secret, while assemblies often act on advice that can reach more of its members, thus making it more emotional in content, and also removing the ability to provide information privately. Thirdly, there is no method of undoing what is agreed to be in concert with human nature, whereas assemblies can change laws or rules from the bast that may have worked better. Fourthly, a monarch cannot disagree with himself, and thus cannot stumble into civil war as can happen with assemblies of many different opinions. Hobbes may point to the negative effects of the American Civil War as an example of what can happen with feuding members of an assembly. Fifthly, while a monarch can be corrupt and show favoritism towards a particular person, he is just one person. In assemblies, you must fear multiple people leading by corruption. Finally, Hobbes claims that a monarchy can fall upon an infant who cannot turly lead a state. While Hobbes admits that this can cause contention and civil war over leadership, civil war is much more common among a group whose opinions are always divided and in conflict rather than just for a short period of time. (Is Hobbes' argument strong? Also, you can link to Hobbes' text directly - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
Limits to Sovereign Power
Dissolution of the State
According to Hobbes, these rights are indivisible and dangerous if divided among multiple people. Here, Hobbes worries about a de-centralization (Is this the right word? - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006) of power in the Commonwealth should the sovereign's power become divided in to various factions. A de-centralization of power, according to Hobbes, would result in the inabilty for the Leviathan to protect its citizens and hence, a reversion back to the State of Nature. (Why? - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006) Hobbes argues that important powers must remain under the jurisdiction of an indvisible soverign. This action prevents civil strife or war. (I don't think this section belongs here - maybe above, with the rights of the sovereign - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
On Liberty
In the commonwealth, liberty exists in spite of the rules and regulations that are imposed on society. Liberty exists because the laws are artificial in nature and they are created by the very people who are bound by them. Therefore, the subjects are responsible for the will and actions of the sovereign, even if these actions are harmful to them individually. However, Hobbes says that a subject in a social contract still reserves the right of self-preservation. While the Sovereign may rightfully punish or kill subjects for breaking the law, the subject does possess a right to resist the will of the sovereign as this is not a liberty that can be surrendered to the social contract. (This section is not very clear - xmarquez Sep 14, 2006)
Study Questions
What does Hobbes mean by "equality"?
Why is human equality important for Hobbes' political theory?
What does Hobbes mean by the "state of nature"?
>
* Why does human equality lead to war in the state of nature?
>
What does Hobbes mean by "law of nature"?
What is the right relationship between the sovereign authority and the individual?
(Add your own or modify these - xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
Table of Contents
Background
Leviathan was Thomas Hobbes' most important work and one of the most influential philosophical texts of the seventeenth century. Published in 1651, it was written partly as a response to the fear that Hobbes experienced during the political turmoil of the English Civil War. It became clear to Hobbes during the 1640s that Parliament was going to turn against Charles I of England, so he fled to France for eleven years, fearful that he, as a Royalist, would be persecuted. He produced Leviathan during this self-imposed exile, and it was published in 1651, two years after the beheading of Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth.
Hobbes argued in Leviathan for the necessity of absolute sovereignty, and as this was generally unpopular in the years following the English Civil War and coincided with several texts that tried to justify the execution of Charles I, his work was extremely controversial politically. It was also, however, controversial philosophically, as Hobbes tried to challenge the nature of philosophy itself. Hobbes claimed that traditional philosophy offered only useless sophistries and insubstantial rhetoric, so he wanted to reform philosophy completely. He went about this by trying to prevent disagreements about the philosophical foundations of human nature, society, and government. Because he believed that civil war was a result of disagreements about the philosophical foundations of political knowledge, Hobbes believed that a reformed philosophy to end divisiveness would also end civil war. Hobbes has had a lasting impact on the development of Western philosophy, as he is credited with inaugurating political science.
The Leviathan
The Leviathan, which, in modern Hebrew means "whale," but has since become synonymous for any giant creature, is used by Hobbes to represent the state. It is the singular authority "to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence". The head of this creature is the soverign. Its body made up of all the collective strength and authouity conferred on him by the people who enter into the commonwealth through the social contract. It uses its power to ensure peace at home and to oppose their enemies abroad. Therefore, within this creature consists the essence of a commonwealth.
The Social Contract
Hobbes is an important early exponent of the notion of the social contract, which Rousseau later expanded upon. In Leviathan, Hobbes explains various laws of nature aimed at the survival of mankind. Hobbes's belief is that man's natural state is one of war, a war that pits the wills and desires of each individual against those of his neighbor (See State of Nature).
Hobbes explains that the best option to ensure survival is for people to enter a "social contract."
A social contract takes place when man renounces his right to do all things, and to be content with as much liberty against others as he would allow others against himself. The goal of this contract is the termination of war in exchange for peace. In order to achieve said peace, however, Hobbes believes it is necessary to establish/create an order that is external to the nature of man. It is this artificial control, which is often referred to as "society," which Hobbes argues is essential for the basis of the social contract. For the viability of this society, Hobbes argued that absolute sovereign was necessary to enforce rule of law.
Laws of Nature
(So what is a law of nature, for Hobbes? Do they hold in the state of nature? -
1. To seek peace. Each man has the liberty, or absence of external impediments, to do that which is necessary to preserve his own nature. Naturally, every man has a right to everything.
2. To give up rights (such as the right to kill) in order to escape war and continual violence. In corcordance with the first law of nature, one should do unto others as he would want others to do unto him.
3. To keep social contracts we make with others. Breaking of the covenant, or a breach in the keeping of promise and faith, is unjust.
4. To show gratitude to those who keep contract. This might consist of treating all individuals in a society with certain basic rights. We are certainly not showing gratitude to those who keep the contract when we treat them unjustly. Furthermore, we might say Hobbes' gratitude includes certain necessities such as food and healthcare, in addition to the primary protection offered by the social contract.
5. Complaisance, that is, man should attempt to compromise with others in order to achieve covenant and peace. Man will do what he can for conservation of his own nature. Those who comply with this law are said to be sociable.
6. The notion of the pardon. Man should consider pardoning past offenses made against him in order to attempt to reach the primary objective of peace.
7. Men seek for the future good in executing revenge against enemies that have offended them in the past.
8. Contumely, or declaration of hate against another, is prohibited. Contumely does not contribute to peace, man's primary objective.
9. The recognition of equality in other men. The breach of this law is pride; pride has no place in the condition of mere nature.
10. Arrogance, or the desire to do more than one's share, does not contribute to peace. Therefore, man should strive to be modest and reserve some rights for other men; all men are equal in rights. (Are these all the laws of nature? Also, you can link directly to Hobbes' text - since the text is online -
The Commonwealth
Hobbes suggests that the final end or fulfillment of men who love freedom is to relinquish their own freedom in order to gain particular security and live life without a constant fear of war with all other people. He argues the only way to achieve this security is to form a ‘commonwealth’, which he defines as “the multitude united in one person.” Under this system, the multitude will submit their will unto one will, which shall “act in those things which concern the common peace and safety.” This person is named the ‘sovereign’ and all the rest are his ‘subjects’. (How does this section connect with the above section on the social contract? -
Sovereignty
Sovereignty can be gained through two ways: acquisition or institution. Acquisition is power achieved by force while institution is power gained when most men agree amongst themselves to submit to some man. In both cases men choose the sovereign out of fear: in acquisition it is out of fear of one man, whereas in institution it is out of fear of one another. A sovereign is a person or group given control over a population, the modern nation-state would be an example of the soverign. In a democracy the sovereign can be made of many different representatives of the populous. (But what is a/the sovereign? -Sovereigns who achieve power through institution have certain rights, which include:
Not all commonwealths can be easily classified as falling within one of these three categories. Ex: There can be elective kingdoms, in which kings have the sovereign power put into their hands for a time. In this case the king is not the sovereign, but the minister of the sovereigns, who are the people that elected him. In the end, however, Hobbes says that all governments ultimately fall under one of these there categories. (How about a contemporary example? Can we say something about the sovereign in the USA -
Hobbes claims that monarchy is the best form of government as it is the form of government most likely to bring peace as it can suffer less from the indecision, conflict, and civil war that can result from multiple-member assemblies. Hobbes claims that, in a monarchy, the monarch's private interest is directly tied to the interest of the whole public since the one at the head of a state cannot be well off unless the state itself is well off. In contrast, in democracies and aristocracies, one member of the sovereign does not rely as heavily on the success of the state for their own private well being. Secondly, monarchs can recieve the counsel of knowledgable people in secret, while assemblies often act on advice that can reach more of its members, thus making it more emotional in content, and also removing the ability to provide information privately. Thirdly, there is no method of undoing what is agreed to be in concert with human nature, whereas assemblies can change laws or rules from the bast that may have worked better. Fourthly, a monarch cannot disagree with himself, and thus cannot stumble into civil war as can happen with assemblies of many different opinions. Hobbes may point to the negative effects of the American Civil War as an example of what can happen with feuding members of an assembly. Fifthly, while a monarch can be corrupt and show favoritism towards a particular person, he is just one person. In assemblies, you must fear multiple people leading by corruption. Finally, Hobbes claims that a monarchy can fall upon an infant who cannot turly lead a state. While Hobbes admits that this can cause contention and civil war over leadership, civil war is much more common among a group whose opinions are always divided and in conflict rather than just for a short period of time. (Is Hobbes' argument strong? Also, you can link to Hobbes' text directly -
Limits to Sovereign Power
Dissolution of the State
According to Hobbes, these rights are indivisible and dangerous if divided among multiple people. Here, Hobbes worries about a de-centralization (Is this the right word? -On Liberty
In the commonwealth, liberty exists in spite of the rules and regulations that are imposed on society. Liberty exists because the laws are artificial in nature and they are created by the very people who are bound by them. Therefore, the subjects are responsible for the will and actions of the sovereign, even if these actions are harmful to them individually. However, Hobbes says that a subject in a social contract still reserves the right of self-preservation. While the Sovereign may rightfully punish or kill subjects for breaking the law, the subject does possess a right to resist the will of the sovereign as this is not a liberty that can be surrendered to the social contract. (This section is not very clear -Study Questions
- What does Hobbes mean by "equality"?
- Why is human equality important for Hobbes' political theory?
- What does Hobbes mean by the "state of nature"?
>* Why does human equality lead to war in the state of nature?
>
- What does Hobbes mean by "law of nature"?
- What is the right relationship between the sovereign authority and the individual?
- (Add your own or modify these -
xmarquez Oct 16, 2006)
>